Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Honestly I think Apple kind of gypped people by not putting in the retina display. The competitors in the 7" tablet market have the retina displays already, and for cheaper. They seem to be banking off the idea that they sell enough iOS devices that people will buy the mini no matter what. What sucks is you know the next update (which based on their new release schedules probably isn't that far away) will sport the retina as the big new feature without many other changes.

This is all coming from a huge Apple person. A tad disappointing.




Remember, you don't have to buy it. If you're confident that a Retina mini will be in the next iteration then just hold off until then.

Unless you think they could have shipped the exact same product (battery, price, weight, thickness) and included a retina display, but didnt just to make you upgrade, then sure that's disappointing. But Marco is arguing they couldn't have done this, and I agree.


Of course. Don't get me wrong, as a whole the thing is amazing especially for those accustomed to iOS. It's merely that given everything else that apple already has out (and now the competition), putting anything below retina when we are now all used to it will only hurt the iPad Mini market.


Honestly everything on the market is so much better and cheaper than what we had even 2 years ago, that I don't have the energy to be disappointed.

Remember when a portable computer was $600 - $100+ and weighed 5+ lbs, or was a 320x720 netbook, and that was AMAZING? It wasn't long ago...


I'm pretty sure most computers are still >= $600.


Did you even read this article before posting a comment?

Just wait a year for the GPU and battery improvement and no doubt they will introduce one then


Of course I did... did you even read my comment that you are replying to where i said "the next update will have it"? They already have the power to do a retina now... That is why the Kindle Fire HD can do it at the same size (ok fine not EXACTLY retina but still pretty close given that size of a device).


its not close to the same battery power as the number of pixels is far greater for retina than HD on Fire HD

Resolution: 1920 x 1200 vs 2048 x 1536, thats a fair chunk more power

2304000 vs 3145728 pixels = 27% more battery drain


The competitors have higher resolution displays than the iPad mini, but probably not what Apple would call "retina" - the Nexus 7 has 216 ppi, which is less than the iPad's 264 ppi, and significantly less than the 326 ppi that a pixel-doubled iPad mini would end up with - which, considering the niceness of the iPhone at the same DPI, is probably worth it.


Got to hand it to Apple's marketing team. This HTC phone has a 1080 display with 440 ppi, but customers will still be asking if the phone is "Retina".

http://androidcommunity.com/htc-j-butterfly-features-a-5-inc...


What's the point ? After about 300 PPI you're not going to tell any difference. Just puts a strain on the battery, GPU, and CPU. Looks great on the spec sheet, but then I guess that is the primary point rather than how it actually performs.


Always good to see you comex :D. I agree it's not really officially "retina", which going off of Linus Torvald's words, is really overused. But still, I've also become very accustomed to looking at a retina display and downgrading to a resolution even less than that of Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD is a bit disappointing. I do really love the weight of it and feel of it, but nowadays the screen is a huge factor.


OT: Just so you are aware, "gypped" is a racial slur against gypsies.


What sucks is you know the next update will sport the retina as the big new feature without many other changes

That was literally my first thought. The new Mini will probably then be hailed as "ground-breaking".


Then wait for the new Mini. Problem solved!




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: